I get a lot of strange mail, often from people who have formed a strong attachment to a particular fringe figure they follow on TV (what communication theorists call a parasympathetic relationship) and have become quite defensive of that person. Today was the first time I’ve ever gotten an angry letter from someone incensed that I applied literary analysis to the work of a long-dead fringe theorist. A fellow named Bob Newton, who goes by the sobriquet “the Rogue Researcher,” wrote me a vulgar and somewhat threatening email promising to investigate me and “strip that façade down around your pompous ass” because I had suggested in 2013 that James Churchward, who died in 1936, had borrowed themes and leitmotifs from Helena Blavatsky in the creation of his lost continent of Mu on the model of Blavatsky’s Atlantis and Lemuria.

Man this article really sucks and it looks like you haven't done any research other that what someone told you. (Or you read it on a bathroom wall) I knew from previous conversations you were a bit off in the head but this one proves it. You need to stick to writing about something you know something about and from what I have read from you ,,,, you actually don't know anything. Well you do know how to write False information and stir up a bunch of lies and bull shit on people. Suggesting Churchward copied Blavatsky....

In the original 2013 blog post, I had traced the origins of Churchward’s ideas to their literary roots. For example, his Naacal tablets originated in Augustus Le Plongeon’s assertion that the priestly elite of the Maya were called Naacal, and the lost continent of Mu takes its name from Le Plongeon’s fictional Atlantean queen of the Maya, Móo. I also noted that Churchward’s almost certainly fictitious account of finding the Naacal tablets in India (later moved to Tibet), in a secret repository and miraculously translating them from an unknown prehistoric language was a close parallel to Helena Blavatsky’s claims for how she discovered and translated the Stanzas of Dzyan the same way. I finished by presenting evidence from Churchward’s own writings that he was familiar with Blavatsky’s account and actively sought to discredit it. I compared the accounts on the basis of their thematic and structural similarity and offered a disclaimer: “I can’t confirm that Churchward was directly copying Blavatsky.” Indeed, both authors’ stories are very similar to Joseph Smith’s account of finding lost ancient texts in upstate New York and then translating the Book of Mormon through magic. So why would Bob Newton be upset about this? As it turns out, he’s a true believer in Mu and is working to harmonize root races, Muvians, and the growing fringe history consensus that the suspected comet impact at the start of the Younger Dryas destroyed a lost civilization. Obviously, if you assume Mu existed, then you will be upset at the idea of drawing literary parallels between Churchward and what I presume to be his sources. He really shouldn’t be that upset since Newton’s own idea of Mu is no longer closely connected to Churchward’s; according to an August radio appearance, he now believes that all of Pleistocene Earth was Mu, so he is essentially just applying the name to Graham Hancock’s Atlantis-like, comet-destroyed culture. Newton concluded his email by offering me additional information “before you come after me,” presumably so I would write about him to help promote his new book and online radio presence, neither of which I will name here. He also asserted that my “claim” to be an “author” is false. “You are kidding me correct? (sic).”

I own three of your books, Jason. Amazon took my money and I received books with your name on the cover as the author.

I wonder what Bob Newton's definition of author looks like?

I really enjoyed your books, especially *The Cult of Alien Gods*.

Thank you for your work, even though it gets you some very hateful mail.

Reply

Clete

9/4/2015 12:35:49 pm

Jason, I admire your work and what you do to counter the fringe writers and fifteen minute television celebrities. However, one of the downsides of what you do and what you write is that, like most in the public eye, is that you will attract the attention of nut-jobs, like "The rogue researcher". Who feels, that by attacking you, he makes his work more creditable. He is a minor figure, doing somewhat the same thing as Scott Wolter and Graham Hancock, who have also attacked you for having questioned their work and methods. Thank you again.

Reply

David Bradbury

9/4/2015 01:50:06 pm

"The Rouge in Me"?

Reply

tm

9/4/2015 03:19:58 pm

Beware of stalkers with really pink cheeks :)

Reply

Tony

9/6/2015 01:47:46 pm

The only bad song on Bob Dylan's New Morning album.

Reply

Mike

9/4/2015 02:19:05 pm

Jason, I visited the guy's page by clicking on the link you gave. At the bottom of the first section, he signs off like this [copied and pasted] Kind Regards, Bob NewThe Rogue Researcher. What do you expect from a guy that can't even get his own name correct on his own website?

Reply

Zach

9/4/2015 04:06:50 pm

Makes me proud to have bought the e-book of "The Cult of Alien Gods" on amazon. Guys like this will do anything to defend their "heroes" and never question them. Even I question my own heroes, because I still try to be as much of a rational person as possible. And yes, you are right Jason: James Churchward did plagiarize Helena Blavatsky. Nobody needs more evidence than to read his damn book (which I have) and it is practically the same story as hers. And it doesn't help Newton's cause that Churchward's brother, who advocated his brother's ideas, was a known Theosophist who wrote about extremely racist ideas derived from it.

Reply

Scarecrow

9/4/2015 04:29:12 pm

Madame Blavatsky = William Scott-Elliot = James Churchward

Reply

Shane Sullivan

9/4/2015 06:01:19 pm

"He really shouldn’t be that upset since Newton’s own idea of Mu is no longer closely connected to Churchward’s..."

Not to mention the fact that his blog talks about root races. Doesn't get much more Blavatskyan than that.

Reply

Kal

9/4/2015 08:20:00 pm

The guy hassling you is probably livid about Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Book of Mormon play too. He probably hangs about in coffee shops mumbling about Mu every time someone brings up a totally different subject, not directed at him.

Keep debunking the fringe. It is enjoyable to read these blogs.

Reply

Tony

9/5/2015 11:26:12 am

Kudos for your reasoned and polite response to Mr. Bob Newton.

Having nothing better to do on this lazy day off I just checked out The Rogue Researcher's Facebook page, which is chock-full of wacky woo. Besides the rude and inane attack on you which tops the page, there's also this earthshaking information from a Mr. Wellington Marin that will no doubt change the course of history as we know it:

"When Masonic agents under order of the Illuminati were dispatched to gain control of the tunnels, and discredit the men who found them. a famous Illuminati agent was sent down to Ecuador (1976-Tayos Cave) to put the lid on this story, and to seize the artifacts and gold for the Illuminati overlords like they always do. Who was the famous agent that was sent? Before that is revealed, you should know that this man was involved in perhaps the biggest cover up in human history. His name is Neil Armstrong. Look again at the photo above and you will recognize Armstrong with his cave expedition gear on. Armstrong was a Mason and confidant of the New World Order."

There's more, but 'nuff said.

Reply

Gayle

9/6/2015 04:05:06 pm

I read your blog but have never posted before. I appreciate your hard work in debunking a lot of this fringe archaeology nonsense. My husband and I put on ancient aliens occasionally when we need a laugh. The absurdity grows with every episode.

Many highly educated professionals spend decades studying and proving their hypotheses regarding ancient civilizations only to have public interest and approval overturned against them by some idiot who thinks the great pyramid was 1. a landing zone for alien spaceships, 2. a power generator or 3. time traveling device (depending on which nut-job explanation one is reading at the time).

I viewed the page of this so-called rogue researcher and honestly I found it wanting. It was not particularly professional and the narrative seemed to ramble on and on, determined to prove a point lost 5 paragraphs before. Many of the links led to empty pages. Personally, it appeared to be a badly-made vanity card.

A confident and ethical researcher knows his work, builds a rational hypothesis to prove his point and is mature enough to be open to questions and criticism from fellow researchers as frequently, this is how you learn.

There is no rational thought behind much of this fringe history, beyond what what the nutters out there are desperate to believe. They are re-shaping history around what they want believe. You are clearly making the natives nervous which means you're doing something right.

Reply

Tony

9/6/2015 08:16:03 pm

I once worked for a vanity press and we regularly received and, if their checks cleared, published many a kook's manuscript, and your description "appeared to be a badly-made vanity card" (as well as the rest of your comment) is perfection.

Reply

Gayle

9/7/2015 01:58:46 am

Thank you. :) Nice to hear from someone who agrees.

Tony

9/8/2015 02:06:56 am

You're welcome, Gail. My favorite was an indescribably awful spy novel written in all caps. The author ordered 5,000 copies, which are no doubt rotting in a basement somewhere. ;-)

Tony

9/8/2015 02:09:52 am

Sorry for misspelling your name, Gayle. I was laughing at the memory and lost my train of thought..

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.